Taking cognisance of a non-public criticism filed by a Bhavnagar resident, stating that officers of the Vadodara metropolis police had allegedly kidnapped and assaulted him in 2020, a courtroom has initiated legal proceedings in opposition to 4 police personnel, who have been hooked up to Vadodara’s Manjalpur police station on the time, in addition to the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Zone III Dr Karanraj Vaghela.
Within the order handed on November 11, Vadodara’s Extra Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace (ACJM) R R Mistry has summoned the officers, asking them to be current within the courtroom on December 18 for the proceedings. Vaghela is presently the Superintendent of Police of Valsad.
Based on the non-public criticism filed within the courtroom by Ashish Chauhan, who runs a pc enterprise, plain-clothed officers of Manjalpur police station arrived at his store – Shakti Computer systems, Bhavnagar – in a non-public automobile on November 29, 2020, and dragged him out after assaulting him, with out explaining the reason for the motion.
Chauhan advised the courtroom that he was compelled into the automobile and when his household tried to intervene, the Vadodara police personnel allegedly intimidated them as effectively and threatened to get his spouse, an assistant police sub inspector, suspended from the service.
In his petition, Chauhan acknowledged that he was taken to the Ghogha Street police station in Bhavnagar the place the personnel allegedly filed a “false case” in opposition to him and his brother on the fees of “obstructing authorities officers” of their responsibility and “attacking the police”. Chauhan additional claimed that he was delivered to the Manjalpur police station within the non-public automobile the place the personnel assaulted him by the evening.
Apart from Vaghela, the opposite individuals named within the criticism are Police Sub Inspector (PSI) BS Selana, Head constable Sana Thakar, and Assistant SIs Mehuldan Khimrajibhai Gadhvi and Amardeepsinh Pratapsinh Chauhan.
Chauhan, the complainant, additionally submitted CCTV footage of his workplace from the place the police officers had allegedly dragged him out, the courtroom famous in its order. The courtroom has ordered a legal case to be filed below the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 449 (house-trespassing), 504 (intentional insults that provoke a breach of the peace), 506(2) [criminal intimidation involving more severe threats, such as causing death or grievous hurt], 325 (voluntarily inflicting grievous harm), 323 (voluntarily inflicting harm), 427 (mischief that causes harm to property value no less than Rs 50), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 114 (abettor current when crime is dedicated) in opposition to the 5 personnel.
Chauhan’s advocate Darshan Patel advised The Indian Categorical that his shopper was arrested in an FIR lodged at Manjalpur police station in opposition to an “unknown accused” in the identical 12 months, pertaining to the sale of a automobile of theft. Patel mentioned, “That FIR…is in opposition to an unknown accused. It’s relating to the fraudulent sale of a automobile of theft and the police case is that the deal to promote the automobile befell exterior the store of my shopper. The Manjalpur police station additionally filed a chargesheet within the case and finally, the legal continuing was stayed by the Gujarat Excessive Courtroom.”
Within the November 11 order, the ACJM took “major cognisance” of Chauhan’s criticism and authorised the legal inquiry within the case.
The order acknowledged, “The CCTV footage produced by the complainant reveals that the accused is being taken away in a black-coloured non-public automobile. As per the proof offered by the complainant, a major cognisance may be made out… Due to this fact, a legal inquiry is authorised within the case and a legal case is registered in opposition to the accused. Summons issued for December 18.”
Whereas Vaghela was unavailable for remark, senior officers of the Vadodara metropolis police mentioned that the police would make a submission earlier than the courtroom on the date of the subsequent listening to because it had “not been given an opportunity to be heard” within the case.
